The root of our political problems

[BugI02]

Let's take Gallup poll numbers for party affiliation last year.
Over 40% of respondents identified as independent. That is a lot in my book.
View attachment 218759

Few Americans Who Identify As Independent Are Actually Independent. That’s Really Bad For Politics.

If you’ve ever been in a conversation about politics, you’ve probably heard someone say, “I don’t like either party” or “Politics is just so ugly these days.” T…

fivethirtyeight.com

The problem is that few independents are actually independent. Roughly 3 in 4 independents still lean toward one of the two major political parties, and studies show that these voters aren’t all that different from the voters in the party they lean toward. Independents who lean toward a party also tend to back that party at almost the same rate as openly partisan voters.

“Independents tend not to look all that different from partisans,” said Samara Klar, a political scientist at the University of Arizona and co-author of the book “Independent Politics.” “But they do tend to be more averse to identifying themselves as a partisan when there is a negative stigma associated with partisanship. So, it’s really the arguments, the hostility, the negativity that seems to be driving this behavior.”

That sounds counterintuitive given how many more Americans are identifying as independent, but remember that most aren’t actually independent. Independents are still voting largely for one of the two major parties; they’re just refusing to affiliate with them publicly.

 

[Keith_Indy]

Shapiro: ‘The Regulatory State Needs To Die. A Stake Needs To Be Driven Through Its Heart.’ | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

 

[KLB]

Few Americans Who Identify As Independent Are Actually Independent. That’s Really Bad For Politics.

If you’ve ever been in a conversation about politics, you’ve probably heard someone say, “I don’t like either party” or “Politics is just so ugly these days.” T…

fivethirtyeight.com

Because there generally is no other choice.

In that poll I would qualify as a Republican leaning independent. That doesn't mean I am a Republican.

 

[jamil]

That's not what I have a problem with. You and I both know that a libertarian is much more likely to align with a conservative candidate (except on weed) than a progressive one, so that libertarian vote is unlikely to affect the progressive's vote total

What I have a problem with is the willful blindness to any personal responsibility for the consequences. The attitude that 'the R's should have offered a better candidate' is armchair quarterbacking at best. You'd think wanting the best R possible 'just in case'would be the prepper call

Third party voting is just choosing the blue pill

Where does Gary Johnson align?

 

[Leadeye]

dc delenda est!

 

[BigRed]

Shapiro: ‘The Regulatory State Needs To Die. A Stake Needs To Be Driven Through Its Heart.’ | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

“The regulatory state needs to die. A stake needs to be driven through its heart.”

 

[BugI02]

Where does Gary Johnson align?

With the wind from the burning buds

 

[actaeon277]

I don't understand why this isn't being done already. These people drive policy that affects the financial markets and shouldn't be able to use that to their advantage. There should be a snapshot of their investments taken at the time they enter office and only those investments and their salaries should drive their wealth while they're in office, nothing else. IMO they shouldn't be allowed to invest in anything while they're in office. If gains are made that are outside of their salary and the investments they had before they entered office, they should be audited and fined/jailed if a penny came from outside sources.

Congress makes the law.
They are NOT gonna make laws limiting THEMSELVES.

 

[BigRed]

The root of our problem is we are disregarding the lessons from the founders.


"WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


Jefferson has to be rolling in his grave.

 

[jamil]

The root of our problem is we are disregarding the lessons from the founders.


"WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


Jefferson has to be rolling in his grave.

While I agree that following those lessons would tend to prevent where we are. Is that actually a root cause? A problem has factors, which have factors caused by other factors, and so on, all the way down until you get to the bottom where nothing else caused the thing. It's at the root. So, were there other factors that caused humans not to regard the founder's lessons?

Yes. For a society to disregard wise principles those principles would have to lose regard. Exploitation of human flaws, I think would be a primary factor. So, a minority of people can create an atmosphere that causes enough people to forsake the importance of those principles, and here we are. How did that happen? Is there an underlying cause for what that is? And then for that? All the way down.

I think this illustrates the problem with blaming nebulous collective factors as if they're an individual factor. "We" didn't follow the lessons from the founder, and that's why we're in this pickle. Yes. Sure. But is that an actual concrete cause? It doesn't feel like it is, and here's why. It's as if "we" is a singular "it" that is somehow to blame. The collective conscience was irresponsible. If collectively we are at fault for irresponsible with what the founders gave us, it's like saying everyone is. And, they kinda are. But if everyone is, then no *one* is. So it's easy to perch ourselves on high ground and declare we have failed, without having identified any actual concrete cause that has a solution. "We" just escape into the nether, blamed without any *one* paying restitution. I want a line of concrete causes all the way down to the nitty gritty bottom.

What caused society to neglect the reality of the wisdom handed to us? The answer to that gets us at least to the next node down the family tree of causes.

 

[BigRed]

While I agree that following those lessons would tend to prevent where we are. Is that actually a root cause? A problem has factors, which have factors caused by other factors, and so on, all the way down until you get to the bottom where nothing else caused the thing. It's at the root. So, were there other factors that caused humans not to regard the founder's lessons?

Yes. For a society to disregard wise principles those principles would have to lose regard. Exploitation of human flaws, I think would be a primary factor. So, a minority of people can create an atmosphere that causes enough people to forsake the importance of those principles, and here we are. How did that happen? Is there an underlying cause for what that is? And then for that? All the way down.

I think this illustrates the problem with blaming nebulous collective factors as if they're an individual factor. "We" didn't follow the lessons from the founder, and that's why we're in this pickle. Yes. Sure. But is that an actual concrete cause? It doesn't feel like it is, and here's why. It's as if "we" is a singular "it" that is somehow to blame. The collective conscience was irresponsible. If collectively we are at fault for irresponsible with what the founders gave us, it's like saying everyone is. And, they kinda are. But if everyone is, then no *one* is. So it's easy to perch ourselves on high ground and declare we have failed, without having identified any actual concrete cause that has a solution. "We" just escape into the nether, blamed without any *one* paying restitution. I want a line of concrete causes all the way down to the nitty gritty bottom.

What caused society to neglect the reality of the wisdom handed to us? The answer to that gets us at least to the next node down the family tree of causes.

Man ate an apple from a tree hoping man could be God. Now, here we are.

 

[45jack]

The plan:
Saul Alinsky”s Doctrine: 8 steps to topple a nation and create a socialist state

1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people

2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

 

[Ingomike]

I don't understand why this isn't being done already. These people drive policy that affects the financial markets and shouldn't be able to use that to their advantage. There should be a snapshot of their investments taken at the time they enter office and only those investments and their salaries should drive their wealth while they're in office, nothing else. IMO they shouldn't be allowed to invest in anything while they're in office. If gains are made that are outside of their salary and the investments they had before they entered office, they should be audited and fined/jailed if a penny came from outside sources.

 

[Ingomike]

That's pretty much what a lot of people have said here. You have to vote for the R.

A very disingenuous characterization.

 

[Mikey1911]

I wondered who might recognize ol' meathead.

Ol' "Atheist Pinko Meathead", to be specific.

Reiner's never been able to leave that character behind since "All in the Family" ended its run.

 

[KLB]

A very disingenuous characterization.

How so?
Voting for anyone other than an R is a waste of a vote.
Voting for anything other than an R is a vote for a D.
It doesn't matter if the R doesn't vote how we ant them to, we have to vote for them so it isn't a D.
So on and so forth.

 

[Magyars]

 

[Ingomike]

@BugI02 comment is correct, but also illustrates the problem. The Party machines, and the professional politician / bureaucrats that populate the administrative state simply ignore the evidence before them.

I would argue that if the Republican Party had listened and acted upon the disaffection of the Perot voters Clinton would have been at worst a one term president. The AWB might well have not been, and our debt might not have ballooned to the catastrophic levels it is now. The Republican Party might also have not been internally roiled by the Tea Party movement, and arguably weakend to some degree in the process.

A root cause analysis has to touch on the entrenchment of the incumbents and the administrative state. While we are currently witnessing a straight up subversion of the Constitution by a cadre of elected communist insurgents, the roots of the problem are far deeper in our society and arguably are the result of wide spread ignorance of the basis of our Nation and its government structure (as intended, not as is).

Large segments of the electorate (but both minorities) are desperate for something different and are willing to grasp at anything they believe offers the possibility for a new course that they envision as "better" based upon their ideology. For the left this is naked communist ideology gently draped in a cloak of "America's version" (it will work here, this time). For the right, it is a return to limited government more closely aligned to the literal and contemporaneous meanings of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States of America and early jurisprudence. Often it means (or requires) the devolution of the administrative state and the reapplication of the restraint upon the Federal Government intended by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Sadly, and I believe largely through ignorance, the great middle ground of the electorate just want their lives to "improve" relative to their current station. Most have little knowledge of this Nation's basis, and all to often don't care to learn. They are not evil so much as ideologically neutral and ignorant. It is only when they are faced with personal hardship or disruption (job loss, income devaluation, etc.) that they react and often then only within the bounds of their ignorance. For this middle ground the large scale media outlets, and the little propaganda distribution machines they hold in their hands all day, form and skew their perspectives on a host of issues usually (but not always) to the left.

A friends 80+ yo mom is what I call a dyed in the wool dem. She votes dem every time, she has all her life. If I made a list of what dems are actually doing she would not support any of it, she has a complete disconnect between the dems of 50 years ago and now…

 

[Ingomike]

How so?
Voting for anyone other than an R is a waste of a vote.
Voting for anything other than an R is a vote for a D.
It doesn't matter if the R doesn't vote how we ant them to, we have to vote for them so it isn't a D.
So on and so forth.

First off the conversations are usually about specific races. Currently with all the gerrymandered districts where the political types select their voters rather than voters selecting their politicians they have made it a team sport. Only one team even remotely supports gun rights. Most of everything you wrote above is correct in most instances. Please show me the democrat that you believe we should support because “vote for the man, not the party”?

As bug explained the results of supporting minor players is usually the worst candidate for conservatives but it has played out the other way as well, some made a case the Trump was elected when those that thought HRC was not left enough for them…

 

[KLB]

First off the conversations are usually about specific races. Currently with all the gerrymandered districts where the political types select their voters rather than voters selecting their politicians they have made it a team sport. Only one team even remotely supports gun rights. Most of everything you wrote above is correct in most instances. Please show me the democrat that you believe we should support because “vote for the man, not the party”?

As bug explained the results of supporting minor players is usually the worst candidate for conservatives but it has played out the other way as well, some made a case the Trump was elected when those that thought HRC was not left enough for them…

I can't tell if you are making my point or arguing against it.